I have requested, and received, permission to post this from KAGU143, Apositive admin.

I am a second year graduate student in the University of Central Florida's Applied Sociology program. Below is a link to a research study that I am conducting on gender expression, and gender of partner preference, in the asexuality community.

I was disappointed by this survey's emphasis placed on children as a means to elucidate asexuality, because they are a lens through which sexuality is seen by others, and not about self-identification, therefore reinforces the disempowerment of the individual even within their own framework of identification. I understand a survey may not have solely asexuality or those asexual (I reject the functionalist notion that an individual human being can be _a_ [blank]-sexual, __an__ _anything_, besides a human being!!! Their sexuality is what it is, their _sex_ is whatever _it_ is; _the individual is neither_!!!!!) as its scope of interest, but I still find invasive the prominent presence of procreation to be a vehicle for prejudice against anyone whose self-concept is absent a central role for themselves in procreation and inter-generational associations _for their own sakes_, another distortion of individuality in the name of social continuity.

Neat-and-tidiness again has little to do with a/sexuality, as do weight issues.

I would have liked to have seen a survey purporting to be for those asexual to actually be about their a/sexuality. Questions like whether or not they enjoy any form of physical stimulation, whether or not they are classed as Highly Sensitive (Dr. Elaine Aron's term), what level of intimacy they seek personally versus sexually and how the two might correlate and dissociate under differing conditions... None of this survey's questions betray anything but an unsympathetic outsider's attempts to classify asexuals, not investigate asexuality and think about how to _draw_ classifications _among those asexual_ ___therefrom___, the way real _research_ into the topic/phenomenon would have done.

I did, however, appreciate the final page with independent sliders for two of the sexes in 3 separate associated aspects (e.g. man (I would term status, an external, socialized attribute), masculine (I might term polarity, a tendency or likelihood a mercurial amalgam of internal and external factors), male (I might term to be a combination of both physical and self-identification as one's being so)).